Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 446

I think the DNC as a whole is partially to blame. The very fact that there is a superdelegate system, disproportionally and undemocratically favoring the voice of the elite, allowed Hillary to grab the nomination when the more likeable Bernie Sanders might have defeated Trump. The fact that the so-called “Democrat” Party represents something so opposite, the fact that the “people’s party” favors the highest ranking officials over the layman by an astronomical ratio, and the fact that the corruption in the nomination process is so widespread, all indicate to me that that they sealed their own fate by pushing HRC to the front of the line. Those who feel that Democratic politicians are morally superior to Republican politicians are simply selective in what facts they recall.

The Republican politicians just about all spinelessly endorsed Trump. Case closed on moral superiority.

While I don’t disagree that it was stupid, I don’t think that necessarily makes them morally inferior alone. Let me give you a personal example: I was the clinical preceptor in my department of the hospital, which basically means on my floor, I was Number 2. The director loved me and thought I was amazing; she promoted me and provided me many opportunities. She also did a whole bunch of stupid stuff that alienated her staff, pissed me off, and set me up for some difficult situations when she decided to leave. I realized that, in order to be a tempering influence for good on my floor, sometimes I would have to tow the line, even when I disagreed with my boss. If I hadn’t played along, I likely would have gotten fired (my predecessor as clinical preceptor had been fired before me for disagreeing too often and too publicly). Now that she’s gone, I’m Number 1, and I am able to make some significant changes/improvements to the department and the hospital as a whole.

I see your point, but sometimes you have to put the good of the nation ahead of your own career and party. I think every Republican who endorsed/supported Trump should be ashamed of themselves.

Admittedly, I agree, and were I an elected Republican politician, I hope I would have the moral courage to oppose our loony president.

I think you would.

Moral of the story: sometimes, to secure your influence, you have to support those in power, even when you vehemently oppose them personally. I am certain that a number of Republicans in Congress loved Trump. Note, however, how many prominent Republcians opposed him. And note how many were not then holding office or not seeking office.

The Democrat primary system is not about a person; it’s the DNC’s system that has been in place since the '80s, is upheld by the elected, and does not represent the evils of a specific individual. It’s a foolish system that runs contrary to the Party’s supposed ideals. Then again, the whole primary system is pretty screwy.

I agree that the DNC should get rid of Super Delegates. Then again, if the Republicans had them, could they have stopped Trump with them?

Perhaps, but that is not the point. I hate him, but he was democratically nominated. I don’t want to sacrifice the principles of democracy simply because the GOP elected a nutjob once. How often would this seeming “safeguard” be a tool of abuse in the future?

As has been pointed out to me by conservatives in this forum: America is not a pure democracy. We are a Democratic Republic. Finally, if we really don’t want to sacrifice the principles of democracy, then we have to get rid of the electoral college.

I am not saying Republicans are morally superior, as I, myself, have abandoned the GOP. I’m just saying that you can’t lay it all on that one issue.

Well you did say

Those who feel that Democratic politicians are morally superior to Republican politicians are simply selective in what facts they recall

Which made me think you were talking about the individual politicians and not the parties themselves.

I am saying that both parties (meaning the elected individuals and not the constituents) are corrupt and amoral swine.

I think the DNC as a whole is partially to blame. The very fact that there is a superdelegate system, disproportionally and undemocratically favoring the voice of the elite, allowed Hillary to grab the nomination when the more likeable Bernie Sanders might have defeated Trump. The fact that the so-called “Democrat” Party represents something so opposite, the fact that the “people’s party” favors the highest ranking officials over the layman by an astronomical ratio, and the fact that the corruption in the nomination process is so widespread, all indicate to me that that they sealed their own fate by pushing HRC to the front of the line. Those who feel that Democratic politicians are morally superior to Republican politicians are simply selective in what facts they recall.

The Republican politicians just about all spinelessly endorsed Trump. Case closed on moral superiority.

While I don’t disagree that it was stupid, I don’t think that necessarily makes them morally inferior alone. Let me give you a personal example: I was the clinical preceptor in my department of the hospital, which basically means on my floor, I was Number 2. The director loved me and thought I was amazing; she promoted me and provided me many opportunities. She also did a whole bunch of stupid stuff that alienated her staff, pissed me off, and set me up for some difficult situations when she decided to leave. I realized that, in order to be a tempering influence for good on my floor, sometimes I would have to tow the line, even when I disagreed with my boss. If I hadn’t played along, I likely would have gotten fired (my predecessor as clinical preceptor had been fired before me for disagreeing too often and too publicly). Now that she’s gone, I’m Number 1, and I am able to make some significant changes/improvements to the department and the hospital as a whole.

I see your point, but sometimes you have to put the good of the nation ahead of your own career and party. I think every Republican who endorsed/supported Trump should be ashamed of themselves.

Admittedly, I agree, and were I an elected Republican politician, I hope I would have the moral courage to oppose our loony president.

I think you would.

Thank you.

Moral of the story: sometimes, to secure your influence, you have to support those in power, even when you vehemently oppose them personally. I am certain that a number of Republicans in Congress loved Trump. Note, however, how many prominent Republcians opposed him. And note how many were not then holding office or not seeking office.

The Democrat primary system is not about a person; it’s the DNC’s system that has been in place since the '80s, is upheld by the elected, and does not represent the evils of a specific individual. It’s a foolish system that runs contrary to the Party’s supposed ideals. Then again, the whole primary system is pretty screwy.

I agree that the DNC should get rid of Super Delegates. Then again, if the Republicans had them, could they have stopped Trump with them?

Perhaps, but that is not the point. I hate him, but he was democratically nominated. I don’t want to sacrifice the principles of democracy simply because the GOP elected a nutjob once. How often would this seeming “safeguard” be a tool of abuse in the future?

As has been pointed out to me by conservatives in this forum: America is not a pure democracy. We are a Democratic Republic. Finally, if we really don’t want to sacrifice the principles of democracy, then we have to get rid of the electoral college.

That is a stupid GOP argument in favor of the College. I have long spoken of abolishing it. The functional problems with the College are nothing compared the functional problems of the superdelegate system. The Electoral College supersedes the superdelegate system only in terms of scope of damage. The former is the more undemocratic and leads to false results and the less popular nominee more often; the latter elects the eclipse-staring, nuke code-holding, veto-wielding president.

As has been pointed out to me by conservatives in this forum: America is not a pure democracy. We are a Democratic Republic.

That is a stupid GOP argument in favor of the College.

It’s also factually wrong. Yes, we are a democratic republic, but that is completely unrelated to the existence of the Electoral College. The House of Representatives is pretty much entirely what makes us a democratic republic. Many democratic republics around the world are perfectly functional without anything resembling an electoral college – in fact, the EC makes us less of a democratic republic than they are. The EC is derived from an early attempt at resolving federalism with a basic distrust of democracy, and you can have federalism without it.

^Exactly! Being a democratic republic and using the EC are completely unrelated! I literally hate that argument! If it were true, then the fact that we elect the majority of representatives directly undermines our republic! AGGGGHHHHH!

I understand that there is some benefit to indirect election, but not in the case of the POTUS, especially with such a poor implementation of indirect election. I am in favor, however, of repealing the 17th Amendment.

*sigh* Why‽ Why do want to take are ability to vote for are US Senators away from us?

Do you elect all your judges? You may elect local judges, but many places do not, and you certainly don’t elect Federal judges. Do you elect the president’s Cabinet? Do you elect the parliamentarian? Do you elect who becomes Speaker of the House? Do you choose the president’s running mate when you nominate your party’s presidential candidate?

There are so many roles we do not elect? It’s not like it undermines democracy. Repealing the 17th Amendment is one of the ways I favor the democratic republic government.

Consider this: a senator is elected for six years, while a congressperson is elected for only two; senators are always two per state, while congresspeople reflect the general population. These traits were part of the Great Compromise of 1787 to ensure that small states were not overpowered by large states. But wait a second! Now that the people elect these individuals directly, these traits do not match the power granted a senator. Now a senator is nearly impossible to remove from office until he/she drops dead or decides to throw in the towel. More frequent elections allow for congresspeople to be replaced more readily. Also, if the population itself, instead of the state government, directly elect senators, then what is the point of having two per state? We are not safeguarding the small states when we are granting the general population proportionally larger power than the large states. We are simply divvying out the power of everyone’s vote unfairly.

Now, look at the positives of having the state legislature make the call. First, most people are set in their ways. Elections are decided almost entirely on the whims of the relatively few whose minds are not made up. The rest is left up to the enthusiasm of those committed to their worldview, whether they will get out and vote. But the end result on a large scale is what is called “the tyranny of the majority.” Look at the referendum on the U.K.'s withdrawal from the EU. If you think about it, most people probably did not have their minds changed from the beginning to the end of the process. But a relatively few did, and thus determined what, in my mind, was an economic catastrophe for Europe. What is interesting about deliberative bodies instead of direct democracy is that policy change does not depend on the whims of a relative few. People debate and make decisions they believe will be in the lasting interest of the people. Those decision are not sudden, but rather systematic and slow. Indirect elections can actually put a brake on kneejerk reactions. Take a look at this article where “the majority” of Britons actually oppose Brexit now.

53% to 47%, people now oppose it. Yet, that really represents the minds changing of only a relative few.

If we were to allow our state legislatures to have more of a role in the electing federal officers (i.e. senators), think of the positives. First, Americans would pay more attention to their local elections, making sure they put state legislators in place with whom they agree, and not simply voting for the president of their choice, and then marking all the members of the same party on the rest of the ticket. Second, it would allow for the legislators, who are more keenly aware of the states’ fiscal and policy needs than the average state resident, to elect a senator to represent the state government’s needs. Remember, the state legislators are still directly elected. Now, they’ll actually be better able to perform their jobs because the federal senators would be answerable to them. And third, speaking of being answerable to them, if the senators get out of line, the state legislator could more easily remove them than we as a general population can. Fourth, those brakes I was talking about…senators would be less likely to make snap decisions based on the passing popularity of an item and would be more likely to represent the needs of the deliberative body on the state level.

It may seem counterintuitive, but I believe repealing the 17 Amendment would actually improve the legislative process on the state and federal levels.

*sigh* Why‽ Why do want to take are ability to vote for are US Senators away from us?

Do you elect all your judges? You may elect local judges, but many places do not, and you certainly don’t elect Federal judges. Do you elect the president’s Cabinet? Do you elect the parliamentarian? Do you elect who becomes Speaker of the House? Do you choose the president’s running mate when you nominate your party’s presidential candidate?

Senators are different than judges, parliamentarians, and the Speaker of the House.

There are so many roles we do not elect? It’s not like it undermines democracy. Repealing the 17th Amendment is one of the ways I favor the democratic republic government.

I don’t get how.

Consider this: a senator is elected for six years, while a congressperson is elected for only two; senators are always two per state, while congresspeople reflect the general population. These traits were part of the Great Compromise of 1787 to ensure that small states were not overpowered by large states. But wait a second! Now that the people elect these individuals directly, these traits do not match the power granted a senator.

How does how the Senators are elected alter the traits or anything about the Great Compromise?

Now a senator is nearly impossible to remove from office until he/she drops dead or decides to throw in the towel.

Senators can be defeated in elections. We can make it easier to remove US Senators from office if we need to without taking away the peoples’ right to vote.

More frequent elections allow for congresspeople to be replaced more readily.

fine, change the term limits for Senators. But still have them elected by the people.

Also, if the population itself, instead of the state government, directly elect senators, then what is the point of having two per state?

The founders decided that we needed one legislative body where all the states were represented equally.

We are not safeguarding the small states when we are granting the general population proportionally larger power than the large states. We are simply divvying out the power of everyone’s vote unfairly.

I am not understanding you here. Whether elected by the people or by state legislatures, the US Senate would still represents each state equally as the founders intended.

Now, look at the positives of having the state legislature make the call.

Yeah, US Senators win their seats by lining the pockets and kissing the a** of the members of the state legislatures and making corrupt deals. No thanks.

First, most people are set in their ways. Elections are decided almost entirely on the whims of the relatively few whose minds are not made up. The rest is left up to the enthusiasm of those committed to their worldview, whether they will get out and vote. But the end result on a large scale is what is called “the tyranny of the majority.”

Sorry, not following you here. Elections are decided by the voters, all of the voters.

Look at the referendum on the U.K.'s withdrawal from the EU. If you think about it, most people probably did not have their minds changed from the beginning to the end of the process.

So?

But a relatively few did, and thus determined what, in my mind, was an economic catastrophe for Europe.

No, the few that changed their minds plus those that already had their minds made up, determined things.

What is interesting about deliberative bodies instead of direct democracy is that policy change does not depend on the whims of a relative few.

Again direct democracy does not depend on the whims of a few, but the whims of all that vote. I don’t get why you think the people don’t matter just because they already have their minds made up. This confuses me.

People debate and make decisions they believe will be in the lasting interest of the people.

real honest debates in Federal and state deliberative bodies are far and few between. Most of the “debates” grandstanding and for show. They come in with their minds made up long before “debate” begins.

Those decision are not sudden, but rather systematic and slow. Indirect elections can actually put a brake on kneejerk reactions. Take a look at this article where “the majority” of Britons actually oppose Brexit now.

53% to 47%, people now oppose it. Yet, that really represents the minds changing of only a relative few.

The point you are missing is that the few minds changed on matter because the numbers on both sides as a whole are very very close. This isn’t a few people deciding this, this is the whole of the country. If 90% had either voted to stay or voted to go, the minds of a few wouldn’t affect the decision at all.

The few had such an effect because the country was already just about split down the middle on the issue, and still are.

If we were to allow our state legislatures to have more of a role in the electing federal officers (i.e. senators), think of the positives. First, Americans would pay more attention to their local elections, making sure they put state legislators in place with whom they agree, and not simply voting for the president of their choice, and then marking all the members of the same party on the rest of the ticket.

Nothing is stopping the people from paying due respect to the local elections already. They are important enough already without the US Senate seats in the balance.

Second, it would allow for the legislators, who are more keenly aware of the states’ fiscal and policy needs than the average state resident, to elect a senator to represent the state government’s needs.

And I am sure state legislators would never ever put their own self interests or that of their party ahead of what was best for the state.

Remember, the state legislators are still directly elected. Now, they’ll actually be better able to perform their jobs because the federal senators would be answerable to them.

I’d rather the US Senators be answerable to the people than bureaucrats in the state legislators

And third, speaking of being answerable to them, if the senators get out of line, the state legislator could more easily remove them than we as a general population can.

Again we can make it easier to remove US Senators when necessary without taking away the peoples’ right to vote.

Fourth, those brakes I was talking about…senators would be less likely to make snap decisions based on the passing popularity of an item and would be more likely to represent the needs of the deliberative body on the state level.

But does that deliberative body always represent the will of the people of the state? I don’t think so.

It may seem counterintuitive, but I believe repealing the 17 Amendment would actually improve the legislative process on the state and federal levels.

I couldn’t disagree with you more.

You’ve also forgotten about the problem of gerrymandering. It is possible due to gerrymandering(and it can even happen with out it), that the party in control of a state legislator is not the party favored by the people of the state. I think this is true in Pennsylvania right now. The Republicans are in control of the state legislator, but I think the majority of the people are Democrats. If we did things your way, the state would have Republican US Senators, even though the people would want Democrat US Senators.

I think the DNC as a whole is partially to blame. The very fact that there is a superdelegate system, disproportionally and undemocratically favoring the voice of the elite, allowed Hillary to grab the nomination when the more likable Bernie Sanders might have defeated Trump.

While there is no way to prove that he would have won, I feel he easily could have better united the Democrat Party and that his supporters were far more passionate than Clinton’s. Heck, Jeebus here protest voted against Hillary. I doubt there would have been much of that against Bernie, even among Hillary supporters. I’ve no doubt most would have gone ahead and voted for Bernie as their number two pick.

I think the unification problem had more to do with Bernie’s supports (and to some extent Bernie himself) than Clinton herself.

Yup, screw Bernie. How dare he be such a good candidate that Hillary looked bad in comparison 😛

Harmy said:
It’s like it’s quite possible that Picasso would have loved to use Photoshop for some of his paintings if it was available back then, but if you take a picture from Picasso and recreate it in Photoshop, it’s not going to be the same picture and it can hardly be used to demonstrate Picasso’s brush techniques.

The leadership of the Left are intensely depraved outright psychopaths. It’s extremely alarming to see regular Americans excuse their catastrophic destruction with “Well, they think they are creating a better world.” No, they are almost entirely beyond that. These are highly educated and motivated and shrewd horrible little monsters. They know that their Critical Theory and Cultural Marxism and insane statism is nothing but a recipe for agonizing totalitarianism. Orwell tried to break through this moronic gullibility when he wrote of O’Brien savagely torturing Winston for trying to believe the Party leaders had higher motivations.

But these vomitous sadistic nihilistic beasts would be instantly and furiously rejected by all were it not for their tools and dupes. This is where Moral Narcissism enters the frame.

The tools and dupes are also psychopaths or have strong psychopathic tendencies. They also feel strong drives to pillage and dominate and destroy all who dare to question their mad program. But for many of them, the cruel demented power of devastation is not enough. They have a deranged need to feel they are the most wonderful beings on the planet for their efforts. They need to feel they are right WHILE KNOWING, UNDERNEATH IT ALL, THAT THEY ARE HORRIFYINGLY AND COMPLETELY WRONG.

UNDERNEATH IT ALL, PEOPLE KNOW. Underneath all the BS people will tell others, and try to as much as half-convince themselves, everyone with at least three functioning brain cells knows the real score and is able to quickly become conscious of right and wrong, helpful and hurtful.

The Moral Narcissist NEEDS and DESPERATELY YEARNS to be CRUELLY and CATASTROPHICALLY WRONG. This is absolutely necessary to their severe mental derangement. Here’s why:

The MorNars require that all should bow to their gloriousness and dedication to their utopian vision, and any who dare to refuse acknowledgement or show the slightest opposition are evil animals who stand in the way and must be despised and watch their children destroyed. They feel a need to believe this makes them good beyond all, but here’s the catch. Nature and nature’s Creator have already established the one optimum Way in which human beings must live and conduct themselves. This Path of True Law is immutable and transcendent and was woven into all existence from the moment of creation. This fact utterly destroys everything that a Moral Narcissist IS and reveals them for the moronic destroyers that they are. If it has already been established by Powers infinitely beyond them, it means that they are pathetic little bits of absolutely ridiculous stupidity. The MorNars understand this much subconsciously and can react in only one way. They hiss and spit, their eyes roll in their sockets, and they are filled with a cruel contempt for any who would choose the Way before what the Moral Narcissist has defiantly declared PC.

*sigh* Why‽ Why do want to take are ability to vote for are US Senators away from us?

Do you elect all your judges? You may elect local judges, but many places do not, and you certainly don’t elect Federal judges. Do you elect the president’s Cabinet? Do you elect the parliamentarian? Do you elect who becomes Speaker of the House? Do you choose the president’s running mate when you nominate your party’s presidential candidate?

Senators are different than judges, parliamentarians, and the Speaker of the House.

And?

My point is that there is nothing inherent in any particular office that requires that senators be voted in directly. Why don’t you get upset that the other offices are not voted in, or not voted in directly (such as the Speaker)?

There are so many roles we do not elect? It’s not like it undermines democracy. Repealing the 17th Amendment is one of the ways I favor the democratic republic government.

I don’t get how.

Consider this: a senator is elected for six years, while a congressperson is elected for only two; senators are always two per state, while congresspeople reflect the general population. These traits were part of the Great Compromise of 1787 to ensure that small states were not overpowered by large states. But wait a second! Now that the people elect these individuals directly, these traits do not match the power granted a senator.

How does how the Senators are elected alter the traits or anything about the Great Compromise?

Because of the intent behind that compromise. It was intended that they represent the states on equal ground. Representing the people of those states is not the same thing because the difference in size/population has little meaning when representing the people directly.

Now a senator is nearly impossible to remove from office until he/she drops dead or decides to throw in the towel.

Senators can be defeated in elections. We can make it easier to remove US Senators from office if we need to without taking away the peoples’ right to vote.

I’m listening.

More frequent elections allow for congresspeople to be replaced more readily.

fine, change the term limits for Senators. But still have them elected by the people.

You mean the term lengths, though I would not squawk at term limits either. They are overdue!

Also, if the population itself, instead of the state government, directly elect senators, then what is the point of having two per state?

The founders decided that we needed one legislative body where all the states were represented equally.

Listen, if representing a state government, then two senators representing that government represents equal footing. But if they are representing the state population, what difference does it make? Why should the people of North Dakota have the same amount of influence as the people of New York in federal decisions? Do you think the people care?

The point of the Great Compromise is rooted in the nature of the American federation. E Pluribus Unum - Of many, one. The purpose was to guarantee that the rights of the states’ governments were given equal treatment. At the time, loyalty to your state was greater than loyalty to the country. States wanted an equal standing at the federal negotiating table
Since the Civil War, we have gotten away from that trend, and we likewise have abandoned the purpose of the indirect election. Now, I see little reason to fret that my state sends as many senators to Congress as California. I don’t really care that my state gets equal representation in that house.

We are not safeguarding the small states when we are granting the general population proportionally larger power than the large states. We are simply divvying out the power of everyone’s vote unfairly.

I am not understanding you here. Whether elected by the people or by state legislatures, the US Senate would still represents each state equally as the founders intended.

See above.

Now, look at the positives of having the state legislature make the call.

Yeah, US Senators win their seats by lining the pockets and kissing the a** of the members of the state legislatures and making corrupt deals. No thanks.

That is called a political bribe and it is illegal. What is not illegal, however, is lobbyists, wealthy donors, and corporations kissing the a** of directly elected senators to ensure they vote the way those influential supports desire. Might it not be nice to ensure that those interfering parties actually don’t get much say in the senators’ decision-making?

First, most people are set in their ways. Elections are decided almost entirely on the whims of the relatively few whose minds are not made up. The rest is left up to the enthusiasm of those committed to their worldview, whether they will get out and vote. But the end result on a large scale is what is called “the tyranny of the majority.”

Sorry, not following you here. Elections are decided by the voters, all of the voters.

Look at the referendum on the U.K.'s withdrawal from the EU. If you think about it, most people probably did not have their minds changed from the beginning to the end of the process.

So?

But a relatively few did, and thus determined what, in my mind, was an economic catastrophe for Europe.

No, the few that changed their minds plus those that already had their minds made up, determined things.

What you fail to see is that large bodies of people who simply live out their lives act in a more fickle manner than a small body that deliberates over an issue. I was explaining why: because of the fairweathered decision-making of a relative few.

What is interesting about deliberative bodies instead of direct democracy is that policy change does not depend on the whims of a relative few.

Again direct democracy does not depend on the whims of a few, but the whims of all that vote. I don’t get why you think the people don’t matter just because they already have their minds made up. This confuses me.

People debate and make decisions they believe will be in the lasting interest of the people.

real honest debates in Federal and state deliberative bodies are far and few between. Most of the “debates” grandstanding and for show. They come in with their minds made up long before “debate” begins.

Regardless of your cynicism about the reality of those debates, the fact of the matter is that a smaller body will make fewer decisions that change with the wind. The Senate can stop the hasty actions of the House, if needed.

Are you aware of the two bodies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom? One is a directly elected body. This is the lower house, the House of Commons. Policy is primarily determined there.

The upper house, the House of Lords, is completely unelected. Though it has changed drastically over the years, it’s role is different than the HoC, particularly in that it cannot indefinitely stop a bill from passing, but it can delay it and cause the HoC to rethink its approach. Its role, like the Senate, is to result in more deliberation. And the U.K. seems to work pretty well.

Those decision are not sudden, but rather systematic and slow. Indirect elections can actually put a brake on kneejerk reactions. Take a look at this article where “the majority” of Britons actually oppose Brexit now.

53% to 47%, people now oppose it. Yet, that really represents the minds changing of only a relative few.

The point you are missing is that the few minds changed on matter because the numbers on both sides as a whole are very very close. This isn’t a few people deciding this, this is the whole of the country. If 90% had either voted to stay or voted to go, the minds of a few wouldn’t affect the decision at all.

The few had such an effect because the country was already just about split down the middle on the issue, and still are.

See above.

If we were to allow our state legislatures to have more of a role in the electing federal officers (i.e. senators), think of the positives. First, Americans would pay more attention to their local elections, making sure they put state legislators in place with whom they agree, and not simply voting for the president of their choice, and then marking all the members of the same party on the rest of the ticket.

Nothing is stopping the people from paying due respect to the local elections already. They are important enough already without the US Senate seats in the balance.

It’s not about respect. It’s about attention. And I’m talking about how laws influence the way people behave. People naturally ignore local elections in greater amounts and turn out for national elections, most heavily for the presidential election. That’s just human behavior, knowing which election might make the biggest difference in their lives.

Second, it would allow for the legislators, who are more keenly aware of the states’ fiscal and policy needs than the average state resident, to elect a senator to represent the state government’s needs.

And I am sure state legislators would never ever put their own self interests or that of their party ahead of what was best for the state.

Why this bitter outlook towards state legislatures? Do you trust your directly elected senators to be more upstanding? In reality, your life should be shaped more by your state laws and lawmakers. That’s the way it was intended, and even with the erosion of state sovereignty, the state government still plays a heavier role than the federal government in your life. In the most ideal setting, I feel the state legislatures should be able to have a greater impact on federal policy.

Remember, the state legislators are still directly elected. Now, they’ll actually be better able to perform their jobs because the federal senators would be answerable to them.

I’d rather the US Senators be answerable to the people than bureaucrats in the state legislators

The House of Representatives already does that. There was a reason for the separate bodies, a reason which has been lost with Amendment #17.

And third, speaking of being answerable to them, if the senators get out of line, the state legislator could more easily remove them than we as a general population can.

Again we can make it easier to remove US Senators when necessary without taking away the peoples’ right to vote.

Fourth, those brakes I was talking about…senators would be less likely to make snap decisions based on the passing popularity of an item and would be more likely to represent the needs of the deliberative body on the state level.

But does that deliberative body always represent the will of the people of the state? I don’t think so.

Warbler, that’s my point. The tyranny of the majority is a real thing. Sometimes, it’s better not to represent the will of the majority, particularly on a hot issue. Sometimes, it’s better to actually have people slow down and talk about things. Heck, the majority voted for Bush in 2004, though in the end, most people didn’t like him. Why don’t we throw out our representatives the moment theye stop representing the will of the people? Because those representatives have the opportunity to take part in a deliberative process and not act on impulse, like the general public have (again, I cite the example that it only takes a relatively few impulsive changes of mind to change the actual majority).

It may seem counterintuitive, but I believe repealing the 17 Amendment would actually improve the legislative process on the state and federal levels.

I couldn’t disagree with you more.

You’ve also forgotten about the problem of gerrymandering. It is possible due to gerrymandering(and it can even happen with out it), that the party in control of a state legislator is not the party favored by the people of the state. I think this is true in Pennsylvania right now. The Republicans are in control of the state legislator, but I think the majority of the people are Democrats. If we did things your way, the state would have Republican US Senators, even though the people would want Democrat US Senators.

Um…Senator Toomey is a Republican, directly elected by the people, Warb.

But again, that is the point. If the majority elected a Republican majority legislature, then they shouldn’t be surprised when that legislature elects a Republican senator. It would have likely turned out with a similar result if your state legislators voted for the senator. I’m betting Toomey was put in place at the same time as a number of Republican state legislators, as 2010 was a very successful midterm election season for the Republicans.

Speaking of the supposed ill of having representatives not always represent the will of the people, remember that sometimes, the majority may lean enough one way to put a representative in place that the people would not normally elect. Nevertheless, those representatives must represent according to what they were elected to do, even if it differs from the will of the people.

Lyman Hall said:

Mr. Secretary — Georgia seems to be split right down the middle on this issue [of American independence]. The people are against it—and I’m for it. But I’m afraid I’m not yet certain whether representing the people means relying on their judgment or on my own. So in all fairness, until I can figure it out, I’d better lean a little toward their side.

Lyman Hall later said:

In trying to resolve my dilemma I remembered something I’d once read, ‘that a representative owes the People not only his industry, but his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion.’ It was written by Edmund Burke, a member of the British Parliament.

It’s okay to have reps that only represent a freeze frame of the electorate in place at the time of his/her election. It’s inevitable and allows for slow, steady change.

The leadership of the Left are intensely depraved outright psychopaths. It’s extremely alarming to see regular Americans excuse their catastrophic destruction with “Well, they think they are creating a better world.” No, they are almost entirely beyond that. These are highly educated and motivated and shrewd horrible little monsters. They know that their Critical Theory and Cultural Marxism and insane statism is nothing but a recipe for agonizing totalitarianism. Orwell tried to break through this moronic gullibility when he wrote of O’Brien savagely torturing Winston for trying to believe the Party leaders had higher motivations.

But these vomitous sadistic nihilistic beasts would be instantly and furiously rejected by all were it not for their tools and dupes. This is where Moral Narcissism enters the frame.

The tools and dupes are also psychopaths or have strong psychopathic tendencies. They also feel strong drives to pillage and dominate and destroy all who dare to question their mad program. But for many of them, the cruel demented power of devastation is not enough. They have a deranged need to feel they are the most wonderful beings on the planet for their efforts. They need to feel they are right WHILE KNOWING, UNDERNEATH IT ALL, THAT THEY ARE HORRIFYINGLY AND COMPLETELY WRONG.

UNDERNEATH IT ALL, PEOPLE KNOW. Underneath all the BS people will tell others, and try to as much as half-convince themselves, everyone with at least three functioning brain cells knows the real score and is able to quickly become conscious of right and wrong, helpful and hurtful.

The Moral Narcissist NEEDS and DESPERATELY YEARNS to be CRUELLY and CATASTROPHICALLY WRONG. This is absolutely necessary to their severe mental derangement. Here’s why:

The MorNars require that all should bow to their gloriousness and dedication to their utopian vision, and any who dare to refuse acknowledgement or show the slightest opposition are evil animals who stand in the way and must be despised and watch their children destroyed. They feel a need to believe this makes them good beyond all, but here’s the catch. Nature and nature’s Creator have already established the one optimum Way in which human beings must live and conduct themselves. This Path of True Law is immutable and transcendent and was woven into all existence from the moment of creation. This fact utterly destroys everything that a Moral Narcissist IS and reveals them for the moronic destroyers that they are. If it has already been established by Powers infinitely beyond them, it means that they are pathetic little bits of absolutely ridiculous stupidity. The MorNars understand this much subconsciously and can react in only one way. They hiss and spit, their eyes roll in their sockets, and they are filled with a cruel contempt for any who would choose the Way before what the Moral Narcissist has defiantly declared PC.

Harmy said:
It’s like it’s quite possible that Picasso would have loved to use Photoshop for some of his paintings if it was available back then, but if you take a picture from Picasso and recreate it in Photoshop, it’s not going to be the same picture and it can hardly be used to demonstrate Picasso’s brush techniques.

After reading your arguments, I think there’s another fundamental philosophical chasm at some more basic level. Generally speaking, I don’t trust people with power to do the right thing. Senators, Presidents, whoever. Elections, while imperfect, are a means of keeping those in power from straying too far. Not the only means, but a critical one – and the one that must be used to some degree to qualify the nation as a democracy. I’m also a big fan of the separation of powers – if you have to give a bunch of people power, use the power of petty infighting to help keep them in check.

Due to some already-long-discussed issues (gerrymandering, the EC, etc), it’s become clear over the years that it’s possible for a minority of voters to retain control of the House and the Presidency indefinitely – the only question is how far a political party would go to implement this sort of minority rule. A system where the votes still happen, but one side is guaranteed to win regardless of the outcome. The Senate, for all its other faults such as its baked-in bias in favor of smaller-population states, cannot be gamed to the same degree as the House and the Presidency. Statewide elections cannot be gerrymandered. I feel it’s only because of this we haven’t seen people take full advantage of the politically-unpopular legal loopholes that could win them the House and Presidency regardless of the vote totals (because the whole concept of “politically unpopular” becomes irrelevant once you no longer rely on vote totals for your wins). There are worse things than gerrymandering floating around in the dark corners of the political world.

Thus, I don’t see the Senate as a less-democratic chamber that moderates the democratic excesses of the House at all. To the contrary, I see it as the nation’s only backstop (albeit a rather weak one given its baked-in bias and limited authority) against any plan for permanent minority rule in the US a la South Africa, which, given recent events, seems to clearly be the plan of far too many. Repealing the 17th would remove that backstop, and nothing else in the Constitution would prevent the sort of minority rule that is technically easily doable within the constraints of the rest of the Constitution – the literal end of American democracy – but for the conscience of politicians, in which I don’t place a great deal of trust.

The leadership of the Left are intensely depraved outright psychopaths. It’s extremely alarming to see regular Americans excuse their catastrophic destruction with […]

Seriously. What is a regular American? Do regular Americans have kids? If so, are single adults not regular Americans? Are regular Americans divorced? How many times have they been divorced? What kind of job do they have? How much money do they make? What kind of car do they drive? Do they own or rent? How big is their residence? Do they have a pet? What kind of pet and how many? Do they have a smartphone?

For any quantitative answer of the above, what is the acceptable standard of deviation from the “regular” mean, median, and/or mode to still be in range of being considered normal?

How many qualifiers must be met to be considered regular? Can someone be single, work at McDonalds and have a flip phone or a landline phone and be regular? Is there a tax-bracket that, once one exceeds it they are no longer regular? I own a Nintendo Switch. Do regular Americans own a Switch? Do regular Americans prefer Apple or Android? I hate Apple. Am I regular?

Harmy said:
It’s like it’s quite possible that Picasso would have loved to use Photoshop for some of his paintings if it was available back then, but if you take a picture from Picasso and recreate it in Photoshop, it’s not going to be the same picture and it can hardly be used to demonstrate Picasso’s brush techniques.

I wonder if he’s actually just an insanely good spambot that’s managed to masquerade all this time as an insane person. I mean think of it… Can anybody every remember him coherently responding to somebody else’s post?

I wonder if he’s actually just an insanely good spambot that’s managed to masquerade all this time as an insane person. I mean think of it… Can anybody every remember him coherently responding to somebody else’s post?

*sigh* Why‽ Why do want to take are ability to vote for are US Senators away from us?

Do you elect all your judges? You may elect local judges, but many places do not, and you certainly don’t elect Federal judges. Do you elect the president’s Cabinet? Do you elect the parliamentarian? Do you elect who becomes Speaker of the House? Do you choose the president’s running mate when you nominate your party’s presidential candidate?

Senators are different than judges, parliamentarians, and the Speaker of the House.

And?

My point is that there is nothing inherent in any particular office that requires that senators be voted in directly.

I totally disagree. The US Senate represent one half of the legislative branch of our federal government. Heck if you can’t see why they should be elected, why should the House of Representative? Why should the President? Why have any elected office?

Why don’t you get upset that the other offices are not voted in, or not voted in directly (such as the Speaker)?

Why don’t we have the individual county governments in your state elect people to your state senate?

There are so many roles we do not elect? It’s not like it undermines democracy. Repealing the 17th Amendment is one of the ways I favor the democratic republic government.

I don’t get how.

Consider this: a senator is elected for six years, while a congressperson is elected for only two; senators are always two per state, while congresspeople reflect the general population. These traits were part of the Great Compromise of 1787 to ensure that small states were not overpowered by large states. But wait a second! Now that the people elect these individuals directly, these traits do not match the power granted a senator.

How does how the Senators are elected alter the traits or anything about the Great Compromise?

Because of the intent behind that compromise. It was intended that they represent the states on equal ground.

They still are, whether the people elect the members or the state government does.

Representing the people of those states is not the same thing because the difference in size/population has little meaning when representing the people directly.

They still represent the state.

Now a senator is nearly impossible to remove from office until he/she drops dead or decides to throw in the towel.

Senators can be defeated in elections. We can make it easier to remove US Senators from office if we need to without taking away the peoples’ right to vote.

I’m listening.

For what? I have to explain you how we can make it easier to remove US Senators???

More frequent elections allow for congresspeople to be replaced more readily.

fine, change the term limits for Senators. But still have them elected by the people.

You mean the term lengths, though I would not squawk at term limits either. They are overdue!

Yes, I meant term lengths.

Also, if the population itself, instead of the state government, directly elect senators, then what is the point of having two per state?

The founders decided that we needed one legislative body where all the states were represented equally.

Listen, if representing a state government, then two senators representing that government represents equal footing. But if they are representing the state population, what difference does it make? Why should the people of North Dakota have the same amount of influence as the people of New York in federal decisions? Do you think the people care?

I don’t get your point here. The founds wanted each state represented equally in the Senate. That is done whether the people in the state elect them or whether they are elected by the state government.

The point of the Great Compromise is rooted in the nature of the American federation. E Pluribus Unum - Of many, one. The purpose was to guarantee that the rights of the states’ governments were given equal treatment. At the time, loyalty to your state was greater than loyalty to the country. States wanted an equal standing at the federal negotiating table
Since the Civil War, we have gotten away from that trend, and we likewise have abandoned the purpose of the indirect election. Now, I see little reason to fret that my state sends as many senators to Congress as California. I don’t really care that my state gets equal representation in that house.

The fact that loyalty to your state has changed since the civil war is another reason to drop the idea of state legislators picking the US Senators.

We are not safeguarding the small states when we are granting the general population proportionally larger power than the large states. We are simply divvying out the power of everyone’s vote unfairly.

I am not understanding you here. Whether elected by the people or by state legislatures, the US Senate would still represents each state equally as the founders intended.

See above.

I still don’t understand.

Now, look at the positives of having the state legislature make the call.

Yeah, US Senators win their seats by lining the pockets and kissing the a** of the members of the state legislatures and making corrupt deals. No thanks.

That is called a political bribe and it is illegal.

And of course our great members of the state legislators would never stoop to do something under the table. perish the thought. Do you honestly expect me to believe that the US Senate elections in the state legislators would never ever be corrupt? It would never be about who is doing the most favors for members of the state legislators. It would never be about getting the friends of the members of the state legislators comfy jobs in Washington? Come on!

What is not illegal, however, is lobbyists, wealthy donors, and corporations kissing the a** of directly elected senators to ensure they vote the way those influential supports desire. Might it not be nice to ensure that those interfering parties actually don’t get much say in the senators’ decision-making?

They still will even with the Senators being elected by the state legislators. Heck you could make the same argument for having the state governments pick members of the House of Representatives.

First, most people are set in their ways. Elections are decided almost entirely on the whims of the relatively few whose minds are not made up. The rest is left up to the enthusiasm of those committed to their worldview, whether they will get out and vote. But the end result on a large scale is what is called “the tyranny of the majority.”

Sorry, not following you here. Elections are decided by the voters, all of the voters.

Look at the referendum on the U.K.'s withdrawal from the EU. If you think about it, most people probably did not have their minds changed from the beginning to the end of the process.

So?

But a relatively few did, and thus determined what, in my mind, was an economic catastrophe for Europe.

No, the few that changed their minds plus those that already had their minds made up, determined things.

What you fail to see is that large bodies of people who simply live out their lives act in a more fickle manner than a small body that deliberates over an issue. I was explaining why: because of the fairweathered decision-making of a relative few.

Nonetheless, it is still the people deciding things. I think that is what America is about.

What is interesting about deliberative bodies instead of direct democracy is that policy change does not depend on the whims of a relative few.

Again direct democracy does not depend on the whims of a few, but the whims of all that vote. I don’t get why you think the people don’t matter just because they already have their minds made up. This confuses me.

People debate and make decisions they believe will be in the lasting interest of the people.

real honest debates in Federal and state deliberative bodies are far and few between. Most of the “debates” grandstanding and for show. They come in with their minds made up long before “debate” begins.

Regardless of your cynicism about the reality of those debates, the fact of the matter is that a smaller body will make fewer decisions that change with the wind. The Senate can stop the hasty actions of the House, if needed.

The Senate can’t do that now?

Are you aware of the two bodies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom? One is a directly elected body. This is the lower house, the House of Commons. Policy is primarily determined there.

The upper house, the House of Lords, is completely unelected. Though it has changed drastically over the years, it’s role is different than the HoC, particularly in that it cannot indefinitely stop a bill from passing, but it can delay it and cause the HoC to rethink its approach. Its role, like the Senate, is to result in more deliberation. And the U.K. seems to work pretty well.

I think there are many that would want to do away with the House of Lords or have them elected. I know I would be totally against this unelected legislative body. The way the UK does it smacks of elitism. Definitely not for America.

Those decision are not sudden, but rather systematic and slow. Indirect elections can actually put a brake on kneejerk reactions. Take a look at this article where “the majority” of Britons actually oppose Brexit now.

53% to 47%, people now oppose it. Yet, that really represents the minds changing of only a relative few.

The point you are missing is that the few minds changed on matter because the numbers on both sides as a whole are very very close. This isn’t a few people deciding this, this is the whole of the country. If 90% had either voted to stay or voted to go, the minds of a few wouldn’t affect the decision at all.

The few had such an effect because the country was already just about split down the middle on the issue, and still are.

See above.

My point still holds true.

If we were to allow our state legislatures to have more of a role in the electing federal officers (i.e. senators), think of the positives. First, Americans would pay more attention to their local elections, making sure they put state legislators in place with whom they agree, and not simply voting for the president of their choice, and then marking all the members of the same party on the rest of the ticket.

Nothing is stopping the people from paying due respect to the local elections already. They are important enough already without the US Senate seats in the balance.

It’s not about respect. It’s about attention.

That is what I meant by respect, giving the elections due attention.

And I’m talking about how laws influence the way people behave. People naturally ignore local elections in greater amounts and turn out for national elections, most heavily for the presidential election.

That is their own fault. The people are free give the local elections all the attention they require. If they don’t, shame on the people.

That’s just human behavior, knowing which election might make the biggest difference in their lives.

It is also stupid. I wish people wouldn’t do it. I always consider carefully every decision on the ballot.

Second, it would allow for the legislators, who are more keenly aware of the states’ fiscal and policy needs than the average state resident, to elect a senator to represent the state government’s needs.

And I am sure state legislators would never ever put their own self interests or that of their party ahead of what was best for the state.

Why this bitter outlook towards state legislatures?

Its called politics.

Do you trust your directly elected senators to be more upstanding?

No, I don’t trust any politician.

In reality, your life should be shaped more by your state laws and lawmakers. That’s the way it was intended, and even with the erosion of state sovereignty, the state government still plays a heavier role than the federal government in your life. In the most ideal setting, I feel the state legislatures should be able to have a greater impact on federal policy.

Well that has changed more and more since the Civil War.

Remember, the state legislators are still directly elected. Now, they’ll actually be better able to perform their jobs because the federal senators would be answerable to them.

I’d rather the US Senators be answerable to the people than bureaucrats in the state legislators

The House of Representatives already does that.

I want both house to be answerable to the people.

There was a reason for the separate bodies, a reason which has been lost with Amendment #17.

nope.

And third, speaking of being answerable to them, if the senators get out of line, the state legislator could more easily remove them than we as a general population can.

Again we can make it easier to remove US Senators when necessary without taking away the peoples’ right to vote.

Fourth, those brakes I was talking about…senators would be less likely to make snap decisions based on the passing popularity of an item and would be more likely to represent the needs of the deliberative body on the state level.

But does that deliberative body always represent the will of the people of the state? I don’t think so.

Warbler, that’s my point. The tyranny of the majority is a real thing.

better the tyranny of the majority of the people, than the tyranny of the party in control of the state legislature.

Sometimes, it’s better not to represent the will of the majority, particularly on a hot issue.

That is why we have deliberative bodies rather than direct democracy.

Sometimes, it’s better to actually have people slow down and talk about things. Heck, the majority voted for Bush in 2004, though in the end, most people didn’t like him. Why don’t we throw out our representatives the moment theye stop representing the will of the people? Because those representatives have the opportunity to take part in a deliberative process and not act on impulse, like the general public have

The deliberative process is still there whether the US Senators are elected by the people or by the state governments.

(again, I cite the example that it only takes a relatively few impulsive changes of mind to change the actual majority).

again, that is only true when the people are split down the middle on an issue.

It may seem counterintuitive, but I believe repealing the 17 Amendment would actually improve the legislative process on the state and federal levels.

I couldn’t disagree with you more.

You’ve also forgotten about the problem of gerrymandering. It is possible due to gerrymandering(and it can even happen with out it), that the party in control of a state legislator is not the party favored by the people of the state. I think this is true in Pennsylvania right now. The Republicans are in control of the state legislator, but I think the majority of the people are Democrats. If we did things your way, the state would have Republican US Senators, even though the people would want Democrat US Senators.

Um…Senator Toomey is a Republican, directly elected by the people, Warb.

Way to totally ignore my point. gerrymandering is a thing, it exists and you know it. You also know it can be used undermine the will of the people and keep the minority party in control of a state legislature.

But again, that is the point. If the majority elected a Republican majority legislature, then they shouldn’t be surprised when that legislature elects a Republican senator.

With gerrymandering it is possible that the majority vote Democratic and still the Republicans end up in control of the state legislature.

Let us create a pretend state. It has 15 people in it. It has 8 Democrats and 7 Republicans. They are split up into 5 districts. They vote to elect members of the state legislature. Here are the results (D for voting democrat, D for voting republican

District 1: D,D,D

District 2: D,D,D

District 3: R,R,D

District 4: R,R,D

District 5: R,R,R

The result: 2 democrats and 3 republicans are elected to the state legislature. They in turn elect two Republicans to the US Senate, even though the majority of the state would want two Democrats to be the US Senators.

See the problem?

Speaking of the supposed ill of having representatives not always represent the will of the people, remember that sometimes, the majority may lean enough one way to put a representative in place that the people would not normally elect. Nevertheless, those representatives must represent according to what they were elected to do, even if it differs from the will of the people.

Lyman Hall said:

Mr. Secretary — Georgia seems to be split right down the middle on this issue [of American independence]. The people are against it—and I’m for it. But I’m afraid I’m not yet certain whether representing the people means relying on their judgment or on my own. So in all fairness, until I can figure it out, I’d better lean a little toward their side.

Lyman Hall later said:

In trying to resolve my dilemma I remembered something I’d once read, ‘that a representative owes the People not only his industry, but his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion.’ It was written by Edmund Burke, a member of the British Parliament.

You quote 1776, well played.

It’s okay to have reps that only represent a freeze frame of the electorate in place at the time of his/her election. It’s inevitable and allows for slow, steady change.

You may have a point here, but still to me it seems un-American to take my vote from me.

You know, Presidential primary elections didn’t used to be a thing either. It used to be that the Partys’ committee members decided (a la, a bunch of white men in a smoke-filled room) who was going to be their Party’s candidate for President.

Should we go back to doing that as well? Then Bernie would have had zero chance whatsoever, and his movement would have fizzled out before it even got started.

Harmy said:
It’s like it’s quite possible that Picasso would have loved to use Photoshop for some of his paintings if it was available back then, but if you take a picture from Picasso and recreate it in Photoshop, it’s not going to be the same picture and it can hardly be used to demonstrate Picasso’s brush techniques.

The leadership of the Left are intensely depraved outright psychopaths. It’s extremely alarming to see regular Americans excuse their catastrophic destruction with […]

Seriously. What is a regular American? Do regular Americans have kids? If so, are single adults not regular Americans? Are regular Americans divorced? How many times have they been divorced? What kind of job do they have? How much money do they make? What kind of car do they drive? Do they own or rent? How big is their residence? Do they have a pet? What kind of pet and how many? Do they have a smartphone?

For any quantitative answer of the above, what is the acceptable standard of deviation from the “regular” mean, median, and/or mode to still be in range of being considered normal?

How many qualifiers must be met to be considered regular? Can someone be single, work at McDonalds and have a flip phone or a landline phone and be regular? Is there a tax-bracket that, once one exceeds it they are no longer regular? I own a Nintendo Switch. Do regular Americans own a Switch? Do regular Americans prefer Apple or Android? I hate Apple. Am I regular?

Who the heck is a regular American?

Well, in this context, I was referring to denizens of North America who are qualified to vote in elections but not particularly concerned with lefty activist political scheming.

In the sense of your question, I would say that a Regular American is one who is a born or properly naturalized citizen with appreciation for the Principles that have fostered everything pleasant and decent in American society and who have considerable desire to live their lives according to what we all, underneath it all, know to be True (this will shock many, but that doesn’t include “transgender” 9 year old boys in skin-tight pink outfits on the covers of our most august publications.) This also is not dependent on marital status or tax bracket or game console disposition…